This is the companion blog to the Reality Check Radio program on Blog Talk Radio.

Friday, March 4, 2011

GA Representative Mark Hatfield is a no show

Rep. Mike Hatfield (R) GA -117

Georgia State Representative Mark Hatfield was supposed to be my guest tonight but he was MIA. He didn't bother to call the show or email to cancel. I suppose he might have been detained in meetings on his Birther bill. It appears to be losing steam at least according to this article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:

"At least a dozen lawmakers have removed their names from a proposal in the Georgia House that would require presidential and vice presidential candidates to prove they were born in the country.

Among representatives that removed their names were Jon Burns of Newington, Penny Houston of Nashville, Tom McCall of Elberton, Ann Purcell of Rincon and Ron Stephens of Savannah. All are Republicans.

“It’s just much more in depth than I originally anticipated,” Stephens said of dropping his support for a measure inspired by the “birther” movement, which believes President Barack Obama was not born in the United States.

Sponsor Mark Hatfield, R-Waycross, originally had 93 co-sponsors of House Bill 401. The measure first appeared in an elections subcommittee on Wednesday and is up for debate at the group’s next meeting."

[Update:]
It appears that Rep. Hatfield did have his hands full. The Republicans are deserting his bill at an alarming rate. The number is now up to 23 supporters that have withdrawn.

"Some Georgia lawmakers couldn’t backpedal fast enough Thursday on a “birther” bill supported earlier this week by a majority of House members. First to block out his name with a heavy black marker on House Bill 401 was John Meadows, chairman of the powerful House Rules Committee.

A steady stream of legislators followed all day. By 5 p.m., at least 23 of the original 93 backers were gone from a proposal requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates prove they were born in the United States. Among them was the bill's lone Democratic supporter, Glenn Baker of Jonesboro.

Seventy sponsors is still a sizable chunk of the 180-member chamber, but is an abrupt about-face from just 48 hours before. Why?"

Many Republicans are complacent that they have allow Obama to serve even though he ineligible. Such a bill would prove Obama's ineligiblity and Repulicans don't want to be caught up in their complacenty.

They also know that if such bill passes, Obama won't be able to satisfy it because he has no long-form BC. Republicans don't want to painted as racists since the Democrats will claim that they depriving an African American the right to be POTUS not withstanding his ineligiblity. If Obama is truly eligible to serve, then no Republican or Democrat should have a problem with the bill since Obama would be able to satisfy it.

"This is what I posted at the Turley blog. The folks at American Thinker refused to post it as a comment to Lakins article:

So here is the posting the American Thinker did not want you to read:

The good doctor is oblivious to the federal legal definition of “birth certificate,” set forth in Title V of the United States Code that he never mentions.

He seems unaware that the definition has been codified as a note following Title 5, United States Code, section 301 (5 U.S.C. 301 nt.):

http://law.justia.com/us/codes/title5/5usc301.html

The definition reads:

“(3) Birth certificate. – As used in this subsection, the term `birth certificate’ means a certificate of birth–“(A) of–

“(i) an individual born in the United States; or“(ii) an individual born abroad–

“(I) who is a citizen or national of the United States at birth; and“(II) whose birth is registered in the United States; and

“(B) that–

“(i) is a copy, issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record, of an original certificate of birth issued by such custodian of record; or“(ii) was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.

Under this definition, the COLB is a “birth certificate.” It is a “certificate of birth” issued to “an individual born in the United States” who is a “citizen or national of the United States at birth” and whose “birth is registered in the United States,” and that certificate “was issued by a State or local authorized custodian of record and was produced from birth records maintained by such custodian of record.” "

They probably need to change the bill about duel citizenship. Instead of that, they should specify the candidate needs to submit a sworn statement that both parents were US citizens at the time of their birth. This would allow Mitt Romey on the ballot but would knock off Obama because his father was a Kenyan citizen.

They probably need to change the bill about duel DUAL citizenship. Instead of that, they should specify the candidate needs to submit a sworn statement that both parents were US citizens at the time of their birth. This would allow Mitt Romey ROMNEY on the ballot but would knock off Obama because his father was a Kenyan citizen.

First of all - Why? There is NO requirement that either parent be a citizen. Wishing is not so does not change reality.

Even if Federal Law recognizes Obama's COLB as a birth certificate, that's federal law and not state law to get on a ballot. Further, the law deals with federal agency and employees who work for federal agency. Obama is the POTUS and as we know there are only 3 qualifications including having to a NBC. Obama's COLB in my opinion as this bill dictates does not provide the satisfactory information that the candidate is a NBC. Even if we are to consider the Full Faith and Credit Clause, I believe that deals with PUBLIC records and birth certificates are not public record. Even if they were, the COLB is connected to underlying birth certificate. I think any state should be able to demand for the long-form BC and I don't think you can piecemeal the Full Faith and Credit Clause where state can ask for one record but not the other. Finally, I think one can make the argument that the clause would be tainted if the person refused constent release of the birth certificate without providing any reason why the original birth certificate should or cannot be shown. In this case, Obama has never provided any reason why his long-form BC should not be released.

Instead of asking for the original birth certificate, they should ask for a birth certificate that contains any of the following markers:Hospital Name and attending Doc OR Home Address and attending doc or midwife OR an Unspecified location but with at least one witness signature.

As we know Obama's COLB has none of these identifying markers.

We know Governor Abercrombie tried to find the long-form BC but all he found was unspecified notation listed in a state archive.

This is possibly the notation submitted by the grandparents registering Obama's birth in Hawaii which is what automatically generated the birth announcements and why the birth announcements list the grandparent's address.

I am reminded of the old joke about the Lone Ranger and Tonto: They found themselves surrounded by hundreds of unfriendly Indians and the Lone Ranger said "We are in real trouble now, Tonto." to which Tonto replied, "What this we shit? Pale Face."

Disclaimer

While the intent of the owner (s) of the Reality Check Radio Blog is to provide accurate information they cannot guarantee the accuracy of the views and opinions presented therein. The views expressed by those commenting on articles do not necessarily express the views of the owner (s) and are entirely those of the commenter. Comments that are profane, rude, or defamatory will be removed at the sole discretion of the administrators.